KVR Audio

mastered · Post by **mastered** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:40 am

So whats the best compressor again?

tahome · Post by **tahome** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:41 am

Dynasone. With absolute certainty

--th

mastered · Post by **mastered** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:57 am

Really?

You like it that much?

tahome · Post by **tahome** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:02 pm

Yes I do. Apparently, from the votes I appear to be the only one here, but if you're into drum&bass or dance music this thing is simply the best there is.

In my humble opinion anyways.
--th

Rangtangtang · Post by **Rangtangtang** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:05 pm

TV is heavily compressed and especialy the adds

mastered · Post by **mastered** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:24 pm

I think soniformer would get more use if it had a detailed pdf manual.

I seriously think that plugin could be awesome for a lot of ME's but i think it needs a quicktime movie or something with some general guidlines and examples, on how to set it up.

PeterL · Post by **PeterL** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:35 pm

mastered wrote:I think soniformer would get more use if it had a detailed pdf manual.

I seriously think that plugin could be awesome for a lot of ME's but i think it needs a quicktime movie or something with some general guidlines and examples, on how to set it up.

I think it's well explained in the manual
Maybe also my review could help here (bottom of the page):http://www.kvraudio.com/get/973.html
It is not so difficult as it looks first

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:07 pm

SynAEsthetiq wrote:Kingston does make a point there...
... but to join the madness:

The Human ear can detect pressure differences that equal movement of airparticles in the order of magnitude of an atomradius, the eye needs a couple (100 or so) photons to react. But to make a comparison of bandwith (which i interpret as bandwith of data) the eye is by far superior to the ear. Think of the dimensions, one ear can only detect in the dimensions of frequency and amplitude (though your brain does interpret some locational information). The eye though has the same dimensions plus a very high 2-dimensional location-resolution (excuse my bad english), so that the actual data is many orders of magnitude greater. The sensitivity, which was discussed here actually, seems to be higher in the ear, if one is inclined to make such comparisons.

cheers,
Syn

very nice, but the ear is 3 dimensional in reaction, allowing our hearing to locate the source of a sound faster then our eyes can. Our field of vision is very poor compared to most other creatures.

uhmmmm...
back to the compressors now

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Thu May 18, 2006 8:53 pm

deaf dunderkwac wrote:very nice, but the ear is 3 dimensional in reaction

last time a looked (pun intended) the vision was 3 dimensional as well.

anyway, carry on lads. I only had my weak pun to share.

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:18 pm

Kingston wrote:
deaf dunderkwac wrote:very nice, but the dunderkwac is an
last time a looked (pun intended) the vision was 3 dimensional as well.

anyway, carry on lads. I only had my weak pun to share.

sheeesh... did I write that...
what an idiot...

More to the point I'm redundantly trying to point out:
What the ear is most accurate at is determining the time-difference when a sound reaches our head...i.e the arrival time to each ear determines the direction of the sound-source
Our ability to analyze these extremely small time-differences is far more accurate then our sensitivity to any particular frequency band or their amplitude.
It's also the biggest reason why we find the electronic re-creation of sound to be false. (this is probably my opinion, but easily re-created using multi-channel surround speakers vs. a 'stereo' pair)

Not trying to hijack the thread, just adding what I believe to be important information as to perhaps why some software algo's sound very different from others.
I dispute nothing

for those who think the eyes are pretty good at seeing, please review the extremely small band of light we call 'visible' light vs. the total bandwidth of light.
While we have no real 'memory' of sound, other than a broad generalization, we also have no memory for color. This is just how we happen to be; it's what makes us think flickering images have motion and that red is always red (unless we're color-blind, then red might be green but is seen as a shade of grey, according to my color-blind friends)

don't mind me.... I needed a break from my 'correcting drawings' mode.

horusrogue · Post by **horusrogue** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:25 pm

Izotope. I just thing gui means good programming. Thats what happens when you go into music from computer art

RTaylor · Post by **RTaylor** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:25 pm

deaf dunderkwac wrote:More to the point I'm redundantly trying to point out:
What the ear is most accurate at is determining the time-difference when a sound reaches our head...

Yeah.

...Apples and oranges. You can't exactly depend on synesthesia.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Fri May 19, 2006 4:25 am

deaf dunderkwac wrote:for those who think the eyes are pretty good at seeing, please review the extremely small band of light we call 'visible' light vs. the total bandwidth of light.

I did understand your post and you raise good points, but on this one I just wanted to remind that there's also a very small bandwidth of hearing range available for us, just the same as we see only a small slice of "all light".

I think if we absolutely have to make comparisons on ear vs. eye sensitivity we'd have to take in account the (1)"full spectrum" of light and sound (what ever we define those to be, already an impossible challenge to do objectively). Then we have to take in account the sensitivity of ear and eye in those particular selected bands(2). Then we have to take in account photon vs. air molecule movement and the bandwidth related sensitivity(3). Then we have to devise some kind of objective comparison of the organs in cellular level(4) in regards to all previous points.

I think that might output us some kind of "objective" function for comparison.

I wonder if it has been done already? Would seem like a nice (yet pointless) academic challenge.

This keeping in mind that I omitted brain functions (5) from that list.

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Fri May 19, 2006 4:34 am

Kingston wrote: I wonder if it has been done already? Would seem like a nice (yet pointless) academic challenge.

This keeping in mind that I omitted brain functions (5) from that list.

I believe many studies have been done on these relationships, otherwise I wouldn't be paraphrasing from my textbooks on the subject. The visual studies were done mainly for the deleopment of digital HDTV and the various compression algo's done by the MPEG committee and the SMPE studies. The AES also had various studies for similar reasons; the development of digital standards. "how lo-o-ow can we go"

tahome · Post by **tahome** » Fri May 19, 2006 4:54 am

deaf dunderkwac wrote:for those who think the eyes are pretty good at seeing, please review the extremely small band of light we call 'visible' light vs. the total bandwidth of light.

The bandwidth of light is basically identical with what we can see. The electromagnetic spectrum however is much larger.

Just trying to make sure you're using the correct terms here.

--th

KVR Audio

overall 'best' mastering compressor?

Generally, what do you consider to be the overall 'best' mastering compressor?